From: Lemuel G. Abarte (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 25 1997 - 00:38:23 EDT
I think we are mixed up, guys (the men of this list). Why do we have to
qualify the terms of the GNT like ANQRWPOS, etc. to focus the boundary of
application to non-sexist, sexist or generic?
Take the example of rendering the word mentioned above into the plain word
man. If we rather qualify the word man IN OUR LANGUAGE with the
qualifications we applied to the Greek word, then our troubles are over.
Then there is no need to make a new translation!
Romans 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death
You take your pick: man = human being = person. But why qualify the Greek
I think this sexism controversy is getting into our nerves. In a refinery
project I used to work with a Singaporean supervisor who used to say: "If
what you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." That is the gist
of what common sense is all about.
Our presupposition, mental model and cultural environment should rather be
questioned rather than the etymology of the words used. We are taking a
second look into the sexist model of these words, I guess, because of the
current issues of our day. Are we being offended by the word man in our
translations? Have women in our society raised this issue? Who did?
Women always take issue on things that men take for granted. This is a
common observation of human behaviour, not linguistics?
Are we going to redefine the word EPISKOPOS since Paul applies it to the
male of the species? I see no other meaning for the bishop who is the wife
of one husband!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:19 EDT